you're watching american history tv, all weekend, every weekend on c-span3. to join the conversation, like us on facebook. each week, american history america" brings you archival films give you context for today's issues. up next, a 1982 pbs documentary media in pennsylvania about regulation of air pollution in national parks. it details the process of turning general language into a 1977 amendment to specific regulations, revealing behind-the-scenes negotiations

and debate between epa regulators and environmental and industry interests. this is 50 minutes. >> funding for this program was made possible by krantz -- grants and the u.s. department of education. ♪ >> when the cornerstone of this building was still new, thomas jefferson said the execution of our laws is more important than the making of them. i am e.g. marshal. farad little notion of how the process of lawmaking would advance in the century and a half that followed, or how complex it would become. within these walls, congress still passes our laws, that this is only the beginning. determining how the laws are made workable is not the job of

congress. this task falls to a powerful but little-known group of bureaucrats known as regulators. some, they are more powerful than the lawmakers themselves. what they do affects nearly every part of our daily lives and has become one of the hotly debated aspects of government. in 1980, theins last year of the carter administration. in a residential section of the nation's capital, david hawkins begins his daily commute. ♪ hawkins is a federal regulator for the environmental protection agency. his job, like the ever-changing the result city, is of the relentless growth of our government. ago, it was relatively simple.

great capitol dome, all as passed and the nation followed. but today, our laws are many and complex. every morning, this city's grand avenues are filled with an rv -- army of federal workers, regulators whose task are two enforce the will of congress. to those who defended, regulation is an absolute necessity to making modern society run. but to its detractors, these agencies represent a bureaucratic monster that generates thousands of unnecessary rules, producing a stranglehold on our economy, our lives, even the air we breathe. ♪ >> a political appointee of the

carter white house, hawkins was chosen to regulate our air pollution laws. he will be a key figure in a clean air battle to unfold in the months ahead. a lifelong environmentalist, he has strong opinions on her government's obligations. >> regulation is to did -- tends to be developed in response to abuse. securities laws were a response to people losing their shirts in the stock market. it is easy to say you're in favor of plus regulation, but if you ask people if they are in fair -- favor of dirtier air, able say no. people are having to spend money to clean up what they've been putting into the air for free all these years. as his day begins at the

environmental protection agency, so does that of a natural advocates -- adversary across town. henry nickel is a lawyer for an industry that feels the weight of david hawkins' regulation. he represents a group of power producers in the west. creates asulation many problems as it solves. >> because the utility industry is building and operating large industrial facilities that produce a great deal of energy of a lot ofuse fuels, they are number one on the list often times for regulation. ♪ the principal problem is the atmosphere of uncertainty that exist. they're talking about investments of hundreds of millions of dollars, and every time they built a plant, only

environmental requirements that applied to the last plant they built have likely than changed. >> in the next two decades, a logical power demands of a nation will double. as the population grows, so does the threat of a future energy crisis. we need energy to run our economy, and regulatory action that can affect that must be very carefully considered in light of the key importance of developing energy independence. >> and in the american west, our possible solutions to energy problems for the next 200 years. shale to release the u.s. from its dependence on foreign oil. but there is a problem. facilities to convert these riches will threaten another resource, one serving the human spirit. ♪

national parks are held as something sacred. i don't remember home, but someone refer to them as islands of hope. >> in washington, are prepared -- barbara brown is concerned. the government will be inundated put powerw permits to plants in the shadow of national parks. this could be the biggest battle of her career. >> i took a backpacking trip for , and ist time in my life was totally stunned by the beauty of the grand canyon. ♪ the grand canyon is there because it is a natural thing of

wonder. i have seen it when it is crystal clear and all the colors shimmer, and i've seen it when it is hard to see across the gorge. pollution is probably the number one threat to our national parks. there is a problem, and if something's not done about it, there might not be national parks as we know them today. ♪ >> one of the first to see the problem is a former park ranger and now naturalist photographer, gordon anderson. of brycete corner canyon, his is a remote voice in the wilderness. yearmake several trips per to bryce canyon to photograph. my favorite time to visit is the winter. the blanket of snow as a new dimension to the colors in the

canyon. fathers of theng inional park system back 1916 set aside parks to be preserved, they cannot anticipate 50 years later these parks would be threatened by enormous power plants operating just outside their boundaries. anderson have been taking pictures of the western parks or years. as time progressed, he felt that his photographs revealing an increasing amount of air pollution entering from nearby power plants. could these scenic wonders survive the effects of large-scale energy development? five years before, in the fall of 1975, he began a one-man crusade to save these natural treasures.

in our nation's capital, with the help of a small band of environmentalists, friends of the earth, anderson brought his photographic evidence to petition congress. the goal of the lobbying effort, find a key legislature -- legislator who would help. rogers, authorl of the clean air act, was now revising the law. although a great deal had been accomplished in cleaning up the nation's air, the andersons lives were alarming evidence that parks were still unprotected. the plant toer photograph the plume from the air and smoke was growing -- blowing into the grand canyon. way into finds its

this huge basin, and the view becomes something more like this. whenis a candlestick peak it is being influenced by pollution, it looks like this. >> in december of 1976, rogers and his staff went west to see for themselves. here they experienced the rugged beauty of our national parks and followed a trail of pollution that led from the grand canyon to a power plant 50 miles to the north. from the four corners plant, nitratesa screen of that had nearly obliterated part of the navajo reservation. the nation's energy needs were clearly conflicting with the preservation of our parks as we know them. >> i am not sure that the monitoring that you did is necessarily all-natural.

it could well be man-made, as well, could it not? >> in the process of amending over 100 new sections of the clean air act, one section would , congress hereby declares as a national goal that the anyntion -- prevention of impairment of visibility in national park areas. 169-a. section its passage is swift. but the process does not end here. congress has neither the technical knowledge nor the staff to turn its desires into reality. this is where the regulators take over. those scores of agencies formed by congress in the past century to enforce the will of the regulators.

formed in 1970, epa was given the mandate to mount an attack on sources of pollution. one of the newest and largest of regulatory agencies, it regulates all sections of the clean air law. our story deals with one small part of the law, the threat of pollution in national parks. but since the land near the parks are rich in resources, regulation here sets the stage for a classic struggle between government and free enterprise. ultimate decisions to shape the regulation from this point will be made by david hawkins. as chief of air pollution programs for epa, his task is to implement the intent of congress, that the clean air laws has swamped his office was work, and while 100 new sections must be regulated, clean air in the parks has been untouched for two years.

to get things moving again, gordon anderson and friends of the earth take the matter to court. the judge orders the epa to draft a proposed regulation within six months and complete the job in one year. ordinarily, the task should take twice as long. with his environmentalist sympathies, hawkins will want a strong interpretation of the law, one it will in his eyes achieve results. with a vaguely worded statute such as this one, to many he becomes the real lawmaker. >> when a group of people start to think about the actual details of translating a law into specific requirements, questions often come up. it is my job to provide those answers. the approach i took was, we are implementing a clean air act, when in doubt we should be detecting the environment.

hawkins' power at this moment is a concern to henry nichols. he knows it could cost his clients $50 million. a stricter implementation could cost $3 billion. >> they are not models of clarity. there is a spectrum of interpretations. you want to look at the facts and pick the one that makes the most sense. the sad part is that it is easier to identify the needs of our program and the red how to implement them. >> in their stand against hawkins, the upcoming months will bring intense work for nichols and his staff. he will form alliances with sympathetic agencies and members of congress.

sift throughantly all available evidence. to the utilities, more regulation could mean delays in constructing new facilities, new costs and a climate of uncertainty caused by changing roles. .- rules >> the regulations could affect the licensing of every plant in the west. they could face rules that could not be met. at national park service headquarters, there is worry that future energy development will bring more air pollution within the parks. opportunity to look toward alternative ways for protection. >> barbara brown must map a strategy for the month ahead.

her immediate program -- problem is that this is not a regulatory agency. she and her staff will have to fight just to be heard. >> i knew it would be a feat of hercules is a good regulation was written within a year, that i think it was a wonderful incentive to get moving. durham, north carolina. to the epa's office of air quality, representatives of the park service, the department of energy, the forest service, and others in the government's first attempt to write the regulation. >> we will work our way through. >> the group is made up of those must live with the rule after it is regulated. they must draft a proposed regulation within six months, that it becomes evident that every member brings separate marching orders from his agency. >> what we are spending money

on. that means there has to be a significant improvement. >> no, it provides criteria. it is other things. engineer johnny pearson is chairman of the group. a tenure bureaucrat with the epa, this is his first chance to head up the writing of a regulation. >> it is not unique or special. >> is how much protection that is the issue. >> the working group will be aided by public input. workshops will be held in three western states on the initial reaction to eliminating visible pollution and the parks. the industry puts in

its opinion. >> it is impractical for producers to operate. >> it points out the need for substantial -- that theemind the epa clean air act was burdensome and costly. they agree that america's air is now cleaner, but to them, this regulation would only duplicate existing roles and create more paperwork and red tape. >> it simply result in wheel spinning and more and more control by inexperienced and unknowledgeable bureaucrats who love to spend money on the impossible. >> we have a power plant up for permitting that is 12 times cleaner and was presented to congress. they are telling us we do not wo regulation. t

>> as usual, the regulation industry shows up in force. one or two -- one who speaks for the environment is gordon anderson. complementing the epa on their efforts to clean up the environment. the reasons they have been criticized by industry is because the intent of industry is to weaken and destroy the provisions of this act. what good is a national park if it is full of smog? what good is the grand canyon if you cannot see? this is one of the most important resources not just in america but in the world. this is no way to treat it. >> we are saying to do the best job we can right now. we cut back to what we can accomplish, recognizing the limitations. the consideration of these long-term strategies will --

long-term strategies, we will begin to look at. groupnny pearson asks the to limit the discussion to industries already polluting the park. he asks them to ignore for now future pollution. before rules can be written, definitions must be reached. >> what is the national goal? any perceptible change to the wouldobserver, that which upset national -- natural conditions. how do we define natural conditions? >> if you don't put that in there, you could go to the l.a. basin and put up a plume there and somebody could say, you can't see it because the l.a. smog is in your eyes, so why can't i build my source? >> when you use that source to

calculate his impact, what you going to tell him natural conditions are? >> that which occurs naturally. air begins toe appear unsolvable for many reasons. we have a hypothetical plant -- >> existing means of scientific forurement are not designed this. clearly, area power plants are not the only polluters. industriesd other add to the picture, as to urban centers as far away as los angeles. wind conditions change hourly, defying accurate monitoring of pollution sources. finally, one thing overlooked by

congress, much of the scenery observed by visitors wise liesde park boundaries -- outside park boundaries. should not these integral vistas also be protected? there are hundreds of these views adjacent to the parks. limiting development of these lands would certainly be opposed i industry. -- by industry. problems,f these there are still the pressure of the first court deadline in which a proposed regulation must be ready for review by may 15. johnny pearson makes the decision, his first draft will ignore future sources and regulate existing holders only. it is a step not popular with park service officials. processs an aggravating at times, when you said something over and over, and they said gotcha, and it was

really not what you said at all. when you care about what you're doing, you identify where he personally with the product you see on paper. it is not just for regulation, it means that when people see the grand canyon 100 years from now. .> i'm surprised at this stage >> it is better than it was. >> i begin to feel like a manic-depressive on a roller coaster. >> across town, friends of the earth received copies of the draft leaked to them. >> 80 pages from epa. it is pitiful. it does not mention anything about new sources at all. >> we have to raise the issue, that is our responsibility. >> you could not intelligently evaluate what the agency was proposing because the agency had an given us all the information

we needed to make a judgment. lifebloodormation is to henry nickel in presenting a strong case. he dispatches a team of attorneys to search park service files. >> the sort of thing we are looking for, what is known about the air. >> have at it. >> we are doing all of this with and i ultimately to the courts, because if you don't get what you want, you have to go to court or forever waive any right you have to be heard on the question. the history of the last several years is that the ultimate decision upsets everybody. >> from durham, johnny pearson and his assistant come to washington to present the

top of the epa. the acid test of 16 working group meetings and five months of effort. subsequently be tested. with keepingters the regulation on schedule. with about five weeks before the court ordered deadline, the reaction of the steering committee is critical. >> there are concerns about the quality of the guidelines we have and their link inch -- linkage to the regulations themselves. >> they are looking at this set s as providing a new tool. the package does not do that. we are not going to go out with scientific data that has not been published or accepted. particularly on monitoring where

i have directors beating on me constantly that i cannot use the tool they are developing in any way until they are. -- are peer reviewed. >> it is easy to do that when there are minor modifications that are necessary. it is not so easy to do when a major overhaul is necessary. >> we entered this exercise, talked to doug, and agreed with the schedule with the court in environmentalists with the upfront understanding we would job first time through. if we are making a transition to a-, i want to do that in the next three years. or we're talking about d- below, i think. >> i don't understand why if we we are aticient that

d or f, i am going to hear about it today. >> we have been raising these major arguments at meetings for the last 2-3 months. i have copies of four memos that have commented on the inadequacy of the whole package going back over the last two months. >> we had a working group. r-k.tarts with w-o- >> it involves your folks working with these people. >> there are more people critiquing the role and people working on it by a long shot. i need the working group to do some work. >> the steering committee sees the first draft as unacceptable. it does not pass its first critical test from the epa.

five weeks from the first deadline, johnny pearson is back at square one. upset over the draft admissions -- omissions, barbara seizes her mom and. -- hers a meeting moment. it was missing a critical piece of the puzzle. the first draft of the regulation totally ducked the issue. >> this package is one of several tools. hawkins to the dangers of not regulating future polluters. >> it was like alice in wonderland. we are working to clean up the old sources but not catching up because of the pollution from the new sources. in less it was addressed, we would be on a treadmill.

demands of the park service team do not make them of the most popular people with the epa staff, but controlling future pollution is reinstated i hawkins. -- by hawkins. to court for a delay is not -- ancient objection is discussed a new. >> nobody thinks there is going to be any revolutionary new invention. >> right now we are scheduled to submit these by monday.

announcer: two weeks before the first deadline, the regulation approaches another internal checkpoint. read border review. as a measure, the package now 100 20 pages of regulation to explain five pages of law. >> what i am going to do is put it in today. get this thing going. signed.s isthat border process basically the last chance for the administrators to object to the administration before it goes to the administrators. >> one of our red border packages. >> we say non-concur. it is either concur or non-concur rather than agreeing or object.

the young people are freaking out about the numbers. announcer: the rush to regulate has taken its toll. a phone call brings news that the supporting cost data are filled with errors. there is no way the proposed regulation would be approved with these figures attached. >> 3.0 goes to 3.3. >> i think it is on the dependency. those numbers are too high. no sense getting comment on a set of numbers where there are severe problems. this is cutting down on government paperwork. ] huckling announcer: he thinks the papers can be corrected and published within a few weeks.

i.e. eliminating the faulty numbers for now, epa will meet the first deadline. the front pages can stay, the back 400 will go. douglas'sdministrator signature, the midpoint deadline is reached. the regulations reflect sympathies. future and the existing sources regulatedon are to be as our integral beast does lying outside. next to goposal must through the all-important public comment. with signature in hand, phase two begins. in the summer of 1980, tourist season begins a new. manyey had done for so years, some 3 million would return to that great, wondrous chasm called the grand canyon. return to marvel at the power in beauty of their land.

>> you wish you could take them home. >> yes. announcer: the people would return to the magnificent when-carved land. unaware of the debate nearby that could these id future of these lands. >> in salt lake city, a public comment time of 75 days would begin. here, the argument of costs, delays, and the uncertainty would again be emphasized by industry. beenese appear to have generated only to applied by the court mandate to have regulations in effect by a certain date will stop >> consideration should not be made in a slipshod manner. >> based upon a hope they would it.ith

>> we urge the environmental protection agency to moderate its schedule for promulgating the regulations until 1985 at the earliest. >> delay, delay, delay. this is a tactic industry is using against the epa to delay it indefinitely. this is not an open sewer. >> as governor of utah i am fully cognizant -- announcer: the views and frustrations of those that would ultimately and forces and a tangle of other rules. >> the regulations we are addressing today sometimes cross the fine line between federal guidance and interference. we are directed to protect air visibility, endangered species, retain all lands disturbed by to: yet provide over 200 million barrels of synthetic oil in the early 1990's. trying to balance all of those

goals within the limited statutory guidelines in and resources in this country, i say in my testimony a difficult task -- it is almost an impossible task. announcer: in washington, the allies accelerate their campaign. i'm capitol hill, they urge members of congress to pressure epa for modification. eventually, even the white house it self is drawn into the debate. ranging from something on the order of 90,000,002 3 millionin -- from 90 two 3 billion and federal cost. >> what that comes down to is how often are we going to dilute the regulations. >> that would be identified in terms of the particular feature

that is important and that in effect is limiting. -- he issue here announcer: a white house concerned with inflation recommends the role be significantly weekend. a victory for local utilities. crites there are fundamental questions we should be looking at. epa has equated impairment with any change. announcer: and courage, they next argued that epa's moved to theude non-park land within regulation is not only unfair but illegal since it was never mentioned why congress. they pockets, he feels, is overstepping his authority. ask the job of the regulators is to implement the laws congress adopts and not create laws. i think the agency created laws. it seems to be pretty straightforward. >> go back to the court.

visibility? announcer: three months before the final deadline, the public ends.t time officially in addition to the massive legal brief are the written comments .f 382 others arguments of regulated industries, the white house, key members of congress and letter-writing campaigns of opposing environmental groups. by the day's end, a stack of paper seven feet high will be under lock and key. >> with the end of the public time, the people of spoken. a vaguely worded law and in perfect scientific information. industry, fearful

that regulation will hamper development and increase cost takes advantage of these weak points. henry nickel has mounted an affected battle. a coalition of legislators, those sympathetic federal agencies and even a cost-conscious white house, pressure is brought. existing power plants from adding costly power controls -- pollution controls. it is worth an estimated $3 billion to industry. at the same time, barbara brown is victorious in her battle to have the regulation applied to future industrial development that might affect parks. this is a total turnaround from what johnny pearson originally proposed. problem biggest of all, outside the park, is the epa team creating law that congress never intended.

announcer: is the one your core deadline jaws near, a concern johnny pearson heads toward washington and final decision. >> as you all know, we are required by september 15, looking over 200 36 comments, virtually every comment we received mentioned integral the stars one way or another. in reading over all of the comments, i have some reservations about our ability the integral court -- integralist issues. we have now seen the comments. there are persuasive arguments being made that will again be made in court. if dave hawkins once to go

forward, that is a policy decision that has to be made. >> we have substantial issues. quite divided as you might expect. they look at the comments and they believe there is some risk as far as a correction. announcer: despite the furs of -- staff, hawkins feels that staff, the fears of his vistas arentegral important. he decides to go ahead. reince you have to proceed from the act that comes to pass. we have to make sure we can defend it will we get to the ultimate lawsuit. we all expect there will be a lawsuit. integral thisn on gives thestas

ammunition needed. there is an added reason for halting. a court delay now would grant time for the election of a new president, one more favorable to his cause. go, barbaraks to brown makes final recommendations. for her, each turn of phrase has attention for protecting or endangering the parks. integral vista is the scene of a landmark. that is to limiting. announcer: making contact with the legal counterpart at epa. henry. is >> what is up? what if you heard? rights we have not heard

anything so i thought i would call you. >> the agency should not be rethinking the entire package. to do that, there would have to be an extension of the deadline. give the epa will until november 24 to respond to your motion and give counsel two weeks from today. announcer: this is not henry nichols round. the regulation will go forward that both men know that when the roll is published, henry will return to the courts and another round of legal maneuver. >> thanks a lot. >> we will have our day. goodbye. announcer: the regulation as a result of many efforts. barbara brown has fought to protect the parks. henry has gained concessions for the power plants existing. into even one issue of personal

notrtance to hawkins will remain involved. >> where we compromised on the integral vistas was allowing the states to have the final say for the impact on an integral vista. it requires an open process. if people cannot equally adopt the impact, they will have the ability to influence the decision. 1980, a final trip from durham to washington. johnny pearson has arrived to deliver the completed documents personally. pages the box are 2000 telling a nation how to implement a congressional resolve to clean the air in our national parks. created with the assistance of congress, the white house, the courts, 15 government agencies, 36 states

and 383 public comments, johnny pearson's job is over. what began as a simple observation of one man through the viewfinder of a camera will shortly become a set of regulations affecting millions. although existing plants will not be able -- required to change, future agencies must prove they will not foul the air before they build. most importantly, it will establish clean the area in our parks as a national goal. today pocket's, a moment to reflect after a year of conflict and compromise. -- we arempossible nine days are short of a year. >> impossible.

>> yeah. well, it should not be but it is. >> oh well. >> thanks a lot. announcer: in a quiet moment, reflecting on the effort to get there, a final step in creating the regulation arrives. bythis one regulation is not any means going to do the whole job. it is meant to make a mark and say, you do not have to be able to buy a high quality environment in order to be able to enjoy one in the united states. announcer: three years after it passes congress, section 169-a of the clean air act will now take effect. dave hawkins's job is done. >> around the world, this

vistas is known for the in the western united states. if you look at the travel see the you will always grand canyon. it is a treasure of the world and we cannot afford not to protect it. announcer: the law will bear the imprint of all concerned. i.e. eliminating existing power plants from the full effect of the regulation, henry has served his clients well. henry: had we not participated in the process, there could have been a set of rules that would of had immediate and disastrous impact on industry. that did not occur. but environmental requirements can be made much simpler than the are right now because it is costing the public a great deal of money and the public is not getting that many benefits. you are going to have to balance what your interests are with the national park with your interest in the economy and energy

development. announcer: barbara brown's success and controlling future polluters is a significant getting. she has helped to shape the law with concern and dedication. barbara: you have to great warhorses. the protection of a national parks the future of our national energy and development at stake. industry and protecting the national parks can coexist. i have seen it one industry has come in and we have been able to lay out what we want to accomplish. a certain amount of trust and to sometimes that is hard to develop because we're so used to wearing our white hats and our black hats that we forget to talk to one another but the first step has been taken and that gives me a great deal of satisfaction. ♪

announcer: barbara brown would be the first to admit that in washington, rarely has there been such a clear victory and almost never is there such a lasting one. the political drama the political drama that shapes our laws and lives is a constant struggle. regulation as written will be an force but this role and the clean air act itself will be challenged again as well all of our laws. we have seen a former park can haveat one person an effect on national legislation and so to make you and i make a difference if we let our voices be heard. marshal. ♪

announcer: you are watching american history tv. 48 hours of programming on american history every weekend on c-span3. follow us on twitter for information and to keep up with the latest history news. >> join us next sunday at 6:00 p.m. eastern for live coverage